Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

When you have an anti-religious, secular bureaucracy and secular judiciary seeking to drive God out of public life, something fills the vacuum. And that something, you know, I don’t know that going from communion to playing war games in which you practice killing people is necessarily an improvement.

We ask why there is violence in our schools, but we’ve systematically removed God from our schools. Should we be so surprised that schools would become a place of carnage because we’ve made it a place where we don’t want to talk about eternity, life, what responsibility means, accountability?

Geez, I wish this story would blow over here already, and let us get back to normal life. I"m fucking tired of this stupid story. Sad? Yes. Tragic? Yes. almost 2 weeks of constant coverage enough? Yes.

While you're waiting, interesting fact about the infamous "Assault Weapons Ban" that cost the Democrats the 1994 election: it was passed with almost unanimous support in the Senate. Republicans and Democrats alike supporting it in overwhelming numbers.

Because it was a good bill? Hell no, it's a terrible piece of legislation, but that's not the point: back when it was passed, there wasn't this "Left = gun control, Right = guns for all" crap. Even before the AWB, Saint Reagan himself, as governor of California, had signed into law some of the worst gun control legislation ever seen.

From what I can discern, the NRA decided that the best way to protect its members was to (relatively arbitrarily) pick a party, and throw its weight behind it knowing that if that party knew that was going on, it would avoid crossing the NRA to avoid losing its support. This policy started in the late seventies, but really took hold in 1994 when they went all out to elect a party that was equally to blame for the hated AWB as their opponents. As long as the supported party stayed in power, and was sufficiently scared of losing support to not waver from pro-NRA positions, the NRA's policies would be bolstered.

And that action drove the usually civil-liberty-loving liberals into the hands of the NRA's opponents. Take a step back a moment: does it really make much sense that liberals, who detest restrictions on speech, on what you can do with your own bodies, on people being jailed, would actually, normally, be in favor - in principle - of someone owning a device as long as they used it responsibly?

And that leads to an obvious conclusion: we can safely assume that it's highly improbable that gun control will pass in the next two years, even token gun control. But let's fast forward to 2014. Congress finally is switched to blue in both houses, as the trends suggest (there was a popular vote victory for the Democrats in the House this year and it was only because of the way district boundaries are drawn that Republicans won the House.) The Democrats celebrate by passing sweeping laws outlawing most semi-automatic weapons with a gun buyback program to get the weapons finally out of circulation.

Who has created the political climate where the Democrats would be so anti-gun it would do such a thing? Where the party of the ACLU would delight in stepping on the rights of millions of peaceful, non-threatening, gun owners?

Bullshit. Mostly, they do. The NRA, and their paid lackeys in the House and Senate, have a long history of opposing any and all legislation that would tighten up the availability of guns. Selling guns is the reason for the NRA's existence. Anything that makes it harder to buy guns is bad for business. That the occasional loser who shouldn't be trusted with anything more dangerous than a pointed stick is able to buy as much as he wants is ample proof that we have a problem. Jezuz H. Christ, folks. You need a license and insurance to drive a car. Is it asking so much to demand that gun owners demonstrate similar proficiency and responsibility? Oh, and before you label me as someone from "the far left", keep in mind that I own multiple firearms and have been an active shooter since I was five years old. I oppose most forms of "gun control". I embrace those forms that ensure that fewer people who should not have guns don't get guns. The NRA and their Republican lackeys do not.

To me, high capacity magazines are important for defending ourselves against the government itself. Out of control police officers. Crazy laws. We are all human beings and we should all have the same basic right to protect ourselves, or if we have to die, at least to be able to take down some of our killers.

If a weapon is available to police agencies it should be available to civilians as well. Despite what law enforcement likes to believe we are not second class citizens. It's always only the civilians who are supposed to be left with (single edged) knives and baseball bats to defend ourselves against opponents with every high tech firearm known to man.

A police officer committed a violent crime against me, but I cannot report him because he would almost certainly come to my house and gun me down. He has already tried to kill me once. If I at least had some decent weapons to defend myself against him I might be more inclined to risk my life and do the right thing by reporting him. As it is he will just continue to hurt and terrorize people and everyone will be afraid to report him.

For defending yourself against burglars or car jackers a handgun is generally sufficient. For protecting yourself against the police or other government agents who routinely wear ballistic vests that make most handguns almost useless you need more serious weaponry.

Next time a group of cops break into the wrong house and shoot down a family and their dog will I be hearing cries that only the military should have firearms? That tazers should be more than sufficient for the vast majority of law enforcement officers? People would protest that cops have the right to protect themselves. Well guess, what? So do we. Is a cop's life worth more than a civilian's life? Not to me.

I had a friend that lost his mind about 20yrs ago and killed a dude with a hammer. He spent years with psychological issues but there was really no recourse for him. We tried to help him, but mental health issues are shunned. Try walking into a hospital and telling them you're losing your mind. They lock you in a county psyc ward for 3days and then let you out. I've seen it happen. To that guy... and he still killed some one. It was a tragedy for everyone involved including him. Given the correct treatment he could have lead a normal life and the dude that he killed would still be alive today.

You can make guns totally illegal and it still wont solve the problem. Keep in mind what's going on here. More children died that day in car accidents than in the shooting. 9 kids died in this country from malnutrition (taken from the US yearly average of 1 in 100,000 deaths per year) that day. While this shooting is a tragedy, it's just media glamorizing it that's making headlines. There are far more dangerous and devistating problems facing the children of this country and you are being distracted by decades old intractable issues... you are being played.

Do you really think any meaningful gun control or video game standards will come out of this? At most, they'll re-instate the assault weapons ban... which was completely worthless and ineffectual. So what if my clip can only hold 10 rounds if clips cost $5 and I can carry 5 clips on me? So what if the gun manufacturer can't call my gun an "Assault rifle"? If that guy had taken the 12gauge into that school instead of the gun he thought looked "Cool" he'd have done a hell of a lot more damage. Any laws in regards to video games will be struck down by the supreme court almost immediately.

Just like abortion or any other of the non-sensical, unsolvable issues they bring up constantly, these are issues that CANNOT be solved by our government. They are using this tragedy to distract YOU from the real problems they could solve but are not.

They could easily garner by-partisan support for funding to help support the mentally ill.

They could pass laws governing the security of schools. Glass doors should be out... windows higher off the ground... Panic buttons in classrooms with deadbolts on the doors. Cheap fixes. When I was a kid in the rural south all the doors and windows at our school had bars to keep thieves out.

They could change the laws governing how we get the mentally ill committed. It is a VERY difficult thing to do now. In most cases the person in question just has to avoid all the appointments and court appearances and there's nothing you can do about it.

Personally I think they are using this tragedy to distract us from all the crap they are not addressing in the upcoming fiscal bill. It's disgusting, but that's what our leaders do.

Even the NRA shouldn't have a problem with people properly securing their firearms.

I don't know about NRA the organization - I don't think they've articulated any coherent position on that point so far - but, personally, as an NRA member, I don't have a problem with that.

In fact, I think we should have laws for responsible keeping of firearms. Pretty simple stuff: if someone takes your gun and commits a crime with it, and it can be shown that you were negligent in securing it (e.g. it was your kid, and you didn't keep in in a gun safe), then you're liable. If we do it for cars already [nashville-...orneys.com], we should definitely do it for guns.

It's 911 all over again, complete with horrified overreaction. I wonder how many children died in car accidents [slashdot.org] the day of that shooting? Their parents are grieving just as hard, but they're unsung. You never hear about it unless it happens in your home town. Auto accidents are the leading cause of death among children. You want fewer kids dying? Fix the roadways. Almost NO kids die in school, this horror notwithstanding. Most dead kids are peeled off of pavements.

Look, folks, your kids are safe in school, or at least, safer than they'd be anywhere else.

But you're right, his mother was an idiot to have those guns around him, considering his handicaps. I wouldn't be against a law that said if there's someone with certain disorders (bipolar, schitzoaffective, a few others) in the house you can't store a gun there.

ANY gun. This talk of assault rifles is stupid, half a dozen automatic pistols in his trenchcoat pockets would have resulted in as many deaths -- maybe more, since his rifle jammed.

And yet countries that ban ownership of assault rifles and handguns by the average person don't have these crimes. They just don't.

Those countries are different in many other ways than gun regulation, though. Are you confident that this single factor is indeed the cause?

As well, there are countries which don't ban handguns, and give civilians ready access to assault rifles (the real, fully automatic ones, not a semi-auto AR which is not actually an assault rifle) - and they still don't have these crimes. See Switzerland, Czech Republic, Baltic countries etc.

We need to be MORE like these countries, not less. We need to ban all assault rifles, and severely restrict the ownership of handguns. One per person, that's it, no more.

Assault rifles, while not banned federally (but they are banned by some states), are already heavily regulated to the point that in the entire history of the USA, there was exactly one spree committed with such a weapon. Of course, an assault rifle, by definition, is a full auto weapon, so vast majority of AKs and ARs in civilian hands today are not assault rifles (as they're semi-auto).

Banning semi-auto "assault rifles" is rather pointless, since they're not functionally any different from any other semi-auto weapon - hunting rifles, sporting rifles etc. There seems to be this fixation on external visual features such as pistol grip or bayonet lug, which make the weapon "scary" (those two were explicitly in the 1994 AWB), but which in reality don't make it any more or less effective in a killing spree. A Mini-14 is not a gun that people think of as an "assault rifle", even misguidedly - but it's every bit as efficient as an AR.

Restricting handguns to one per person is completely pointless. What's the difference between having one, and having ten? If you go crazy, either way, you have a gun.

Why? As I said previously, even if the TSA was effective, I would reject it in its entirely due to the fact that it infringes upon people's freedoms. I would do the same for any legislation seeking to ban guns.

This is something that I have tried to explain to my gun-hating friends.

Banning "assault weapons" (a category which is nebulous anyway - ANY gun is an assault weapon when pointed at someone) won't do a damn thing. A vast majority of gun crimes are done with hand guns. Yeah, I know, those big scary looking rifles sure do look big and scary, but they're rarely used for crime. It's almost all hand guns.

Besides. A small bullet kills just as well as a big bullet at close range..357 magnum,.22 short,.17 HMR, they all kill you. Some airsoft pellet guns that can kill someone if it hits the right spots.

The talk about limiting clip size is also bunk. Ejecting a clip and slapping in a new one takes seconds. It also doesn't stop you from simply carrying multiple guns, or just modifying a clip on your own. A clip is NOT a complicated piece of technology. It's a box with a spring.

Banning guns also doesn't work. Aside from the fact that we have over 300 million firearms in the USA, people who plan to commit a crime with a gun are going to find a way to get one - especially well funded people like the drug cartels. This just leaves law abiding citizens at a severe disadvantage against crooks of all kinds - including those in government.

But let's say that we did somehow magically remove all firearms from the world. Well, then Crazy Psychotic Guy will still want to kill people. He will just use a different means to do it. Explosives of all kinds can be made with household chemicals, but why be so flashy?

Just mix some ammonia with bleach and throw it into a room full of people and lock the door. Slip rat poison into the cafeteria. Want to be sly? Instead of rat poison, try botulism. Angry and on a brutal rampage? Baseball bat, lead pipe, knives, swords. What about a car? School lets out, kids are walking through the parking lot, just gun the motor and run them over.

you're arguing a logical fallacy with a logical fallacy? Nice. How about this:
What's the percentage of car crashes that result in child fatalities vs. the number of cars on the road?
vs
What's the percentage of guns used by pshychopaths that result in child fatalities vs. the number of legally owned guns in the US?

I was saying that society is fucked up in that we don't have an adequate way to help those that mentally ill.

In fact, we try to hide that fact that people suffer from illnesses of the mind. My wife suffers from Anxiety/Depression disorder, but it's a true hassle for her to get the medicine she needs to keep her in balance. She is not a danger to herself or anyone else, but she is fucking annoying. A lot of people abuse the drugs that she uses. This is what makes it hard for her to get them. We have health insurance and a good doctor. The pills themselves are cheap. I think she really needs help from a psychologist/psychiatrist (I can't remember the differences between the two), but she can't get that help. Health insurance doesn't cover those types of doctors.

I was not saying that society was fucked up in that children die from cancer everyday. I know that a lot of money is spent on cancer research everyday, and it's not an easy disease to cure. I also know that we have made great strides, and that a lot of children who died 20 years ago, can and do get better. A friend of mine has a daughter that was diagnosed with cancer. It's all gone, and she should live a normal life now.

I grew up with someone who would later in life be diagnosed with schizophrenia. None of his close friends knew anything about his behavior problems until he started being sent to mental institutions (by his various "girlfriends", who most of the time we had never met). Even then, we didn't believe there was a real problem, because the behavior we witnessed wasn't abnormal to us.

One day, he came to me while he was having an episode. He was convinced that his mother was a demon and needed to be destroyed, and that I was the only God powerful enough to destroy him. He was taken to a mental hospital yet again, after an overnight at the county jail. We have very little contact with him now, and the last I knew, he was living on his own, outside of a mental institution, but taking his medications.

The short story is, some people need serious help with their mental problems, and their families and friends won't know when it's time to intervene. Constant supervision is an absolute necessity for some individuals. Its a really awful thing to think about locking up family or friends in a rubber room. Its by far worse to let them be free to harm themselves AND others... I most likely wouldn't hold this opinion if I hadn't been so close to someone who could be capable of the same destructive force that these other mentally ill shooters.

Its blatantly obvious to me that guns, religion, games, tv, music, etc... are not the issue. All it would take, would be for him to stop taking his medications out of his own free will, and this could all be happening again.

That's not clear at all. He had autism spectrum disorder, which is a developmental, not mental, issue. There is no evidence, statistical or otherwise, which links autism to violence. Certainly, people look for answers as to why someone would do these sorts of things, and "he was nuts" is an obvious, knee-jerk, reaction. That doesn't make it so.

And what help would that be? This country has time and time again shown that they don't want to help people with mental issues. It's treated like a dirty shame and the few people that try to help are under-funded and under-payed. In all likelihood they did try to get him help and were rebuffed at every corner. Unless you have money, no one wants to help.

His parents should be in prison. They are directly responsible because they didn't get their son the help that he needed.

Do you have any idea how hard it is for people to get serious and effective mental health treatment? Half the medical insurance companies don't pay it or charge rediculous copays. For the government to do anything he would have to have been arrested and that usually leads to prison, not quality mental health care. His access to guns and games can be debated until everyone is blue in the face. It is still likely he would have performed some kind of violent act. I dont blame his parents alone, I blame the country. If we spent half the time we waste raging against god, guns, games, and godlessness on developing a social concience. We might actually solve a few problems in this country, if not the world. I weep for all the souls lost in this tragedy, even the shooters.

But what was the result?Parents do NOT have some special all seeing talent. at best they might get a cut feelinh that perhaps somethign is wrong.

She did the wrong thing. From Adams point of view she was pushing him away and out. She became the source of blame for what he was feelingClearly, she wanted him to move on, have a meat space social life, but to people undergoing these depression and mood issues, they onloy see it as negative.

THIS is the price of not have mental health services readily available. If I was to blame someone, it would be the jackasses that shut down the mental health facilities in that town in order to save some pennies.

All this goes back to the perception of mental illness in the us. that people just need to be 'tough', and the people with mental health issues are 'crazy'. And that it's something that doesn't happen to people if the 'live right'.She should have been able to have someone come over and talk to him.Find good ways to get him well instead of just pushing him away.And yes, medication is needed.

I don't blame the mom. I blame a society in where a mom is expected to know everything and if she asks for help she is frowned upon. I blame a society where mental health isn't treated like any other illness of injury.I blame every person who would rather people walk around homeless, gets get killed in schools, plagues return, and malls get shot up rather then spend a few bucks on a social health system.

It's really only apparent anything at all was "wrong" was after he slaughtered 28 people

Actually, I read a report yesterday - not sure how accurate - they all seem to reference a report from Fox News, which quotes a "friend of the family," Joshua Flashman - that his mother was applying for conservatorship of him, so she could have him committed to a psychiatric facility, and when he found that out, that might have triggered his killing spree.

I'll be very interested to see if that report turns out to be true - if so, there probably was more going on with him than a high-functioning Autism Spectrum disorder. I'd say that the simple evidence of what he did is proof that there was a HELL of a lot more wrong with him than Asperger's.

I'll be very interested to see if that report turns out to be true - if so, there probably was more going on with him than a high-functioning Autism Spectrum disorder. I'd say that the simple evidence of what he did is proof that there was a HELL of a lot more wrong with him than Asperger's.

ASDs don't cause people to go on planned, intentional violent rampages. Those who have ASD can have reactive violence when they become overloaded or overstimulated, lashing out on their perceived stimulus with impulsive outbursts, hitting, or screaming. However with most people with ASD, even the sight of blood is enough to freak them out and shut them down. I can't imagine my son who has Aspergers or any of the kids my wife work with that have ASD shooting their mother multiple times, then driving and shooting additional people.

It wasn't an ASD that caused the shooting last Friday. That might have triggered an emotional break down at some point in time, but something else triggered the violence that resulted.

No, no it wasn't. His mother new something was wrong, but mental health program had been shut down. I read she took him to a psychiatrist, but that was only second hand and it didn't talk about what was said.

He exhibited classic symptoms that something was very wrong.

"it's safe to say he made a conscious decision of some kind to engage in murder."no, it isn't. People like you are why we can't have a good mental health discussion.You use thing yu think are obvious to dismiss any mental health issues.You have no idea about mental health. You thing someone can't snap and still do things?

Fuck you, and fuck everyone like you. I am sick of you people and your 1940's view of how people act. You are a fucktwad and a poor excuse for a limp wristed cum stain.

Same goes for the people who modded you 'insightful'. -1 ignorant loud mouth would be more accurate.

Definitely false. Psychopathy is not believed to be caused by failed brain function.

Lack of empathy is a clear indicator of the malfunction.

No, no it isn't. It's a single symptom, one that it shares with other conditions. People are known to be willing to kill dehumanized subjects, without any mental illness, or mentally justify their actions a host of ways. No licensed psychiatrist would diagnose Psychopathy(which is a term that has fallen out of favor for sociopathy and a few other conditions) just on a lack of empathy.

Superficial glibness, cruelty to animals, numerous minor criminal offenses, repeated instances of lack of self control. If you can provide evidence of more than one symptom your argument would have a lot more merit.

I was specifically referring to this event, which backs up my claim:"On 14 December 2012, a 36 year-old villager in the village of Chenpeng, Henan Province, stabbed 23 children and an elderly woman at the village's primary school as children were arriving for classes.[23] The attacker was restrained at the school, and later arrested.[24] All of the victims survived and were treated at three hospitals, though some were reportedly seriously injured, with fingers or ears cut off, and had to be transferred to larger hospitals for specialized care.[25]"

The point is, those sorts of attacks usually end up with not as many people killed, and are very rare, and take place in a nation of more than 1 billion people.

"August 2010

On 4 August 2010, 26-year-old Fang Jiantang () slashed more than 20 children and staff with a 60 cm knife, killing 3 children and 1 teacher, at a kindergarten in Zibo, Shandong province. Of the injured, 3 other children and 4 teachers were taken to the hospital. After being caught Fang confessed to the crime; his motive is not yet known.[16]"

He slashed 20 and killed 3.

Adam Lanza, however, killed every single person in the kindergarten class he targeted.

Leave us Jews out of this -- we go to great lengths to make conversion difficult, and we don't go around proselytizing to non-Jews, and as long as people let us practice our religion we are happy to live and let live. Just because the two biggest religions in the world are based on spreading the word doesn't mean that all religions are trying to do so.

Probably as soon as atheists stop talking about people who choose to follow a religion as though they're stupid misguided children, or living under a delusion, or any of the other rhetoric that gets spouted by the most vocal atheists.

If you think it's okay to treat all atheists like shit because of what the most extreme atheists do, surely you must by the same standard think it's okay to treat all christians as shit for what Westboro Baptist Church does.

Anyhow, the non-believers have nothing to prove. They're not the ones making fantastic claims.The onus is on those who do make fantastic claims to show that they are [i]not[/i] delusional. Whether it's belief in a teapot floating in space, homeopathy, the tooth fairy, god(s), a perpetum mobile or other fantastic sounding tales, it's up to the one telling them to back up their claims. Otherwise, derision and ridicule seems rather apposite.

There are plenty of theories to explain why our society is becoming more violent, including video games and lack of religion in schools. But they are all wrong for a very simple reason: our society is not becoming more violent. It is becoming significantly less violent.

So let's turn the question around: Why are we becoming less violent? One of the more plausible explanations that I have heard is... video games. Teenage boys are staying home and playing video games instead of joining gangs and getting in trouble.

I certainly hope that if this study gets funded, that they have the integrity to look at the issue with a broad scope, instead of trying to avoid an outcome that makes Senator Rockefeller look like an idiot.

Here's a theory for Gingrich and Huckabee. Maybe people are incited to violence by the lunatic politicians running things and that the system now seems broken beyond repair? Jobs. Economics. The widening class divide. High Court versus Low Court justice.

Gingrich and Huckabee would have more credibility on this if they belonged to a pacifist Christian sect like the Quakers or Amish. They don't. Unless I am confusing these men with someone else, they are both historically pro-death-penalty, pro-gun-rights, and pro-imperialism in foreign policy.

So I question whether the religion they seek to insert back into government institution (namely public schools) will serve the purpose of discouraging violence. I don't even think that is their real agenda when they suggest it.

At first I thought this was irrelevant, at best a distraction from the serious topics that need to be addressed, such as freedom vs security, the importance of the second amendment, how we as a society treat the mentally ill.

Then I considered his words and I did some research and it turns out he was on the right track he just didn't take the idea far enough. Allow me to sum up firearm history. Around the third century the Roman Empire adopted Christianity. A few centuries later the Chinese invent the first firearms. Since then firearm deaths have increased roughly 2.9 billion percent!

The only rational conclusion is that our rejection of European polytheistic religions and religious philosophy caused this tragic event. To prevent future gun violence we as a nation must return to worshiping the Polytheistic gods of our ancestors. Obviously not all of them, that would be chaos. I'd recommend the Celtic gods but I'm obviously biased since I'm of English/Irish descent. A strong case can be made for the Norse gods since their movies tend to gross higher in the box office.

Seeing the amount of hate spewed by the so call religious right lately, I have SERIOUS doubts that is the problem.

Just fucking stop, please. There's plenty of hate being spewed from the left, right and center. How about we all stop pointing fingers and shouting that it's "the other sides fault!" Then maybe we can all take some responsibility for the state of things and start to fix it.

Yes, the religious right does that -- and the extreme left does it too. You don't have to look at only one extreme to see all the hate being generated. Your post is an example of yet another one-sided hate spewing viewpoint.

Our recent politics on all sides have generated the idea that anyone who disagrees with the One True Viewpoint is either Evil or Stupid... or both.

I'm not American, but I've worked there for a while. And back home I keep up with the news about the US.

I fail to see that hate-spreading-left you talk about. All I see is crazy people from the Republican Party spreading hate and intolerance, promoting ignorance, forcing their warped puritan religious views on others, but promoting extreme selfishness, against the very basis of the religion they claim to love so much.

Disclaimer: I am not religious, however I have no issue with those who do believe.

Do you have an issue with someone that thinks it should be illegal for non-Christians to practice their religion openly? Do you have an issue with someone who thinks it should be illegal for non-Christians to convert Christians away from their faith, including killing them if necessary to stop them from prosthelytizing? You should. And the person that advocated these things? Newt Gingrich. He has said, on several occasions, that Muslims in America, should be treated the same as Christians are treate

Yes, the rest of the world plays the same violent video games, same movies, same music. And yes, the rest of the world may actually take care of their mentally ill. But there is one big difference between us and the rest of the world.

But there is one big difference between us and the rest of the world.
We have the mostest, biggest, baddest guns.
(Baddestest?)

Switzerland issues fully automatic assault rifles (real assault rifles, not just "scary looking semi-autos") to every mentally competent male of military-eligible age. The type of weapons that are incredibly difficult to acquire in the US (for those of us not obscenely wealthy, anyway)

By your reasoning, Switzerland should be a madhouse of old-west style gunfights; I'll leave it to you to discover whether or not that is the case.

While at one time they used to issue 50 rounds of ammunition along with it they no longer do. And 90%+ of the ammo that was issued has been returned when requested. You can't buy more, and purchasing another firearm of that type is impossible, and handguns are very difficult. Hunting rifles and shotguns are about it. So a society that has been shown to be responsible is given a gun, and one that is showing it isn't should not be. Trust is not only something you have to earn, but you have to be able to keep.

If you want to have a reasoned debate you cannot selectively use facts.

Wikipedia tells me that for the past five years, Switzerland has only permitted 2,000 of those with military issue weapons to store ammunition at home. Prior to that the ammunition was strictly audited. It's hard to kill using a gun with no bullets. Prior to 2007, the auditing requirement would make use of the weapon rare.

You also neglect to mention that the weapons are issued to civilians who have undergone military training. This is not like turning up at Walmart and buying a semi-automatic.

Comparing gun use in Switzerland to that in the US is like comparing chalk and cheese. Unless you're suggesting as a solution to gun crime that everyone of age should be conscripted to receive military training and the government should be allowed in private homes to audit your weapons?

If you want to have a reasoned debate you cannot selectively use facts.

Agreed, and that's a two way street:

Wikipedia tells me that for the past five years, Switzerland has only permitted 2,000 of those with military issue weapons to store ammunition at home.

From the article:

Prior to 2007 members of the Swiss Militia were supplied with 50 rounds of ammunition for their military weapon in a sealed ammo box that was regularly audited by the government. This was so that, in the case of an emergency, the militia could respond quickly. However, since 2007 this practice has been discontinued.

You also neglect to mention that the weapons are issued to civilians who have undergone military training. This is not like turning up at Walmart and buying a semi-automatic.

I neglected to mention a lot of things, as they were non sequitur to the point I was making, and I'm not in the habit of needless pontification.

Regarding this point of yours, I personally believe proper training should be mandatory prior to allowing an individual to purchase any firearm.

Unless you're suggesting as a solution to gun crime that everyone of age should be conscripted to receive military training and the government should be allowed in private homes to audit your weapons?

I suggested no such thing - I will, however, recommend for future reference that you fully read and understand the premise of a post before you respond to it, thus assuring that your statements are at least relevant to the topic at hand.

When bringing up Switzerland in a discussion about gun control, you're being dishonest unless you also point out a few things:

1) For someone to have a gun, they need to serve three months in the military where they'll be evaluated and trained

2) The population of Switzerland is smaller than that of New York City. Sample size matters.

3) The poverty in Switzerland is half that of the United States.

And finally, Switzerland's voters are increasingly in favor of tighter regulations and ending the military-gun-at-home policy.

I'm also a bit unclear about some of the ammunition laws in Switzerland. While guns are easy to come by, it seems the ammo is more controlled than it is in the United States. And, the free ammo that the militia get only contains 50 rounds, sealed and numbered.

Media, as in news media is the problem. Every time a fucked up nutcase goes out on a killing spree, there is non stop media coverage. News media glorifies the murderers yet no one remembers one of the victims. So the next nutcase sitting at home watching this is probably thinking: Man, I could do the same thing and the world will remember me!

...right along with gun owners, we are at the twilight of those two industries unless we put this to a stop. Logical people know video games and guns don't cause violence - crazy assholes do. But as long as we're willing to be vilified, we will be picked to pieces in the chaos.

We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.
Ronald Reagan

Of course! Think about it. A swarming, bloodthirsty race spreads from its blazingly hot, otherwise-lifeless homeland across the sector, devouring or perverting everything in its path. After they destroy a civilized human base, do you know what they do with the remnant? They infest it. They implant their essence into the base's very core, and turn it into a breeding factory - for suicide bombers! Poor, twisted versions of what was once human, with no free will, their only actions for the glory of Mohamm - I mean, the Overmind.

Starcraft is obviously an Islamic plot to destroy the US and Western Civilization.

Lets see, classics:
Romeo and Juliet: Massive family feud between two wealthy "merchant" families, resulting in street battles and pub brawls with deaths. Ending with two main characters committing suicide.
King Lear: King splits up kingdom to his daughters based on who loves him the most. Two of the three daughters conspire together and lie to get the largest shares. King disowns daughter who didn't lie. Once having the kingdom, the 2 daughters proceed to treat their father like crap, and plot to kill him. The good daughter goes to war with the other two. Good daughter is executed. King finds out his good daughter was executed, dies from grief. King's good servant commit suicide to continue serving the King in the afterlife....
Hamlet: Brother of King, kills the King, and then marries his now dead brother's wife. The son of the original king confronts his mother and can't believe that she would marry her former husband's killer. Girlfriend/lover of the son/prince commits suicide because the prince declairs that marriage should be outlawed in rage of what his mother has done.
Oedipus Rex: Son/prince kills father/king. Marries mother who he is in love with....
No, there was no violence in classic literature, as long as you don't consider child molestation, incest, rape, murder, and suicide violent....

This looks more like a case of "shit happened, we need to blame somebody" than actually trying to solve anything. If a violent video game is going to turn someone violent it's more likely as a result of a preexisting condition.

This looks more like a case of "shit happened, we need to blame somebody

I suggest then they look at the dismal state of the mental healthcare system. It's piss poor in the US, just like it is in Canada. People who should be in supervisory care, aren't. People who should be institutionalized aren't. And people who shouldn't be in the care of family when they can't care for them, are. I could go on, and on, and on with stories from friends who are EMT's, EMS, Police and Fire, on both sides of the border about how they deal with this shit every freaking day, week after week.

It's right down terrible where I live(Southern Ontario), being that London is near the St. Thomas mental health centre. And it's simply a revolving door. These are supposed to be committed individuals, with some cases a temporary day leave. Who walk out of the facility. End up in London, and end up endangering themselves or the public. They end up at Victoria under police escort--sometimes with the EMS being treated for serious injuries too, go right back in, two weeks later it's rinse and repeat. And my friends down south relate the same things.

Doesn't help of course that they've gutted the mental healthcare system. 400k+ in care and custody even 30 years ago, it's 40k now. People aren't less crazy, they're simply being dumped out with the public.

Good, so we can finally put that myth to rest. Or by "study" do they mean "find some evidence that shows a correlation between them no matter how faulty the logic may be"? I'm guessing it's supposed to be the latter. After all, you can't earn many political points by commissioning a study that doesn't allow you to create a scapegoat or enact some laws to crack down on the "problem", and the fact he is proposing this now means it is, most definitely, a political move to create the appearance of action (never mind most of the time what should be done is nothing, because bad shit happens sometimes).

If there is an actual link between real world violence and violent video games (and I am skeptical of that) then maybe the violent video games merely reflect the world we live in. Saying violent video games cause real violence might be like saying that Brain Injury causes Football. (American type football.) After all, a link has been established between football and brain injury.

Why aren't we looking at keeping the crazy people themselves off the streets? As someone who has known someone that was mentally unstable and worked with their doctors to have them committed it's next to impossible to have an unstable person committed involuntarily. Typically the best you can do is 3 days, and beyond that nothing can be done unless they are an/immediate/ risk to themselves or others.

The standard needs to be changed to indeterminable risk to themselves or others, as this would make all the difference in the world in keeping unstable people off the streets and the rest of society safe. The standards are simply too stringent and by closing the institutions we have gotten rid of all of the economies of scale that allowed unstable people to have access to the physical and mental health care that they need. The result now is that the mentally unfit are homeless and society isn't protected from the unstable. The idea that this is somehow more 'humane' is ludicrous.

Children in Britain play exactly the same video games that American children play and they don't run around shooting each other all the time. America has a culture of gun violence and until that changes these terrible events will keep happening.

Saying this man killed his mother and then a bunch of children and teachers because he played video games is about and logical as saying he did it because he ate fatty foods, so we need shut down all McDonald's. There is no link whatsoever, beyond the fact that somebody wants to milk the events and the heightened emotions it is generating for their own crusades. Tighter gun control would not have stopped a determined and unstable man from stealing guns to go killing. Even if there had been no guns, Im sure he could have found another way. Hell, this was the 2nd deadliest elementary school killing because the deadliest used a bomb.

This really is getting ridiculous. I am getting really tired of all the politicians and lobby groups trying to spin this tragedy to their own agenda.

This is yet another case of certain people using a given tragedy to push their agenda.

The folks who already have an anti-gaming viewpoint are always going to use a given media event like this to push for bans on / studies on video games.

Last time I checked, it wasn't a troubled teenager taking out their peers, it was a legal adult slaughtering defenseless children. You can study the effects of violent video games on children all you want, but it's not going to address a situation like this. Maybe someone might have legitimately wondered about the connection between the Columbine shooters and video games, but I believe the studies that came out then pretty much said that "batshite f-tards will be batshite f-tards with or without video games" (I may be paraphrasing a little)

Ok, so I don't know either, but just really??? sick bastard ADULT shoots children and someone's proposing studies of video games effects on kids? Yeah, yeah, this guy was a kid once, but honestly - it's pretty obvious that this is yet another "We gotta do SUMTHIN'" knee-jerk response that politicians feel the need to whip out so they can seem like they're taking action... without actually threatening the interests of their donors.

For the record, it's my opinion that anti-gun folks are pretty much doing the same thing - they're going to take every opportunity to push gun laws regardless of the actual situation - they do it because it's how you move an agenda forward - throw it up against the wall enough and something will stick sooner or later.

I think that is your first line of defense, and your first line of inquiry, to start with. How about Mom and Dad stop chasing what the Joneses down the street have? How about Mom and Dad stop worrying about working all the time so they can have a $650,000 McMansion like Sue and Bill do? How about Mom and Dad teaching their kid(s) to be happy with what they have and not lusting for what Bill junior has? How about Mom and Dad get over the stigma of having a conversation with their children and, you know, FUCKING TALK TO THEM - NOT _AT_ THEM? And for the love of whatever you hold dear, do not do this once they are 12. Start the conversations at age 2 - they won't understand it all then, but the topics are there and they will absorb that information. That concern. Those values. Instill in your children respect for adults, respect for others, and respect for themselves. Teach them right from wrong and how to tell fantasy from reality. Do NOT try and teach this to them when they are too old to give a shit what Mom and Dad think or believe - teach it to them from the beginning.

Tell the government to get the hell out of deciding how we discipline our children. Until and unless one is drawing blood and/or leaving bruises in places they should not conceivably be such as around the shoulders, ankles, chest, head, upper arms and so forth - basically, if it is within a few inches of the ass of that child AND this is not a persistent pattern, then fuck off and let them discipline their children. I'm not saying every child needs a spanking, but I know that my generation (late 30 year old and into 40 year old group) grew up respecting adults, authority, and without the vast sense of entitlement pervading our society today AND most - I would say 90% - of my friends and acquaintances had their ass spanked when needed. Or we were grounded and sent to a room NOT filled with every electronic marvel of the age so it was an actual punishment. We were not bribed to be quiet with a toy. We were told to be quiet or you'd get a real reason to cry... and we believed them.

I could go on but I think most people get my point. How about we start with getting Mom and Dad to be Mom and Dad and not "that authority figure I can ignore because they are never home and always working"? How about we start taking personal responsibility for ourselves and our children and stop blaming the TV, video games, and everything else BUT ourselves?

Guns and shooting ranges are not violent in and of themselves. Target shooting is a mental exercise, a bit like meditation, it requires quite a bit of focus and mental control to be good at shooting. You've got to simultaneously be both very observant of the world around you (which way is the wind blowing, how fast is it blowing, etc.) and at the same time block it all out. You can't just go in and empty your clip in 2 seconds and expect to hit anything. If you've never been shooting, you should and you'll see that it is anything but violent. It is a form of mental exercise.

Of course calm doesn't mean stable but the idea that taking your kid out target shooting instantly trains them on how to be a mass murderer is absolutely ridiculous.

And "assault rifle" is an absolute bullshit description which basically amounts to "this gun looks dangerous" there's nothing in the 1994 Assault Weapons ban that really bans anything functional in the guns. Basically its the gun equivalent to trying to reduce speeding by banning people from owning cars that are red, orange, yellow or have flames painted on.

If anything, hunting rifles are -more- dangerous than so-called "assault weapons" because they've got more power behind the rounds. They are also far more accurate.

It amazes me how much of a knee-jerk reaction people have when it comes to guns. Especially from people who have never really shot one. Real guns are quite different than those that Hollywood portrays. Shooting is completely different than that which Hollywood (and video games) portrays.

What the hell is a "military grade" weapon and how would banning those stop shootings?

Banning "assault weapons" to help reduce crime is like banning red cars to reduce speeding.

The gun used in the Sandy Hook Shooting was a.223 Remington, a caliber too small in most states to legally shoot a deer. Meaning that the majority of hunting guns have much more energy than your so-called "military grade" weapon.

These guns aren't fully automatic, they are semi-automatic, the same types that many hunters use. You pull the trigger once and it fires once. You can't hold down the trigger and spray bullets everywhere, to get those you have go to through a LOT of paperwork and they are quite expensive and because of that very, very, very few civilians own fully-automatic firearms.

These guns have detachable magazines, much like any hunting rifle, either bolt-action or semi-automatic. The magazine capacity doesn't matter all that much when we are dealing with unarmed people in a school, the 5 seconds it takes to change in a magazine doesn't make a difference in a massacre like that.

The only other things that separate an "assault weapon" from an ordinary hunting weapon is the use of bayonet mounts and some other stylistic differences, none of which make a difference when it comes to the Sandy Hook Shooting.

The idea that the gun used in the Sandy Hook Shooting is somehow more dangerous than your grandpa's.30-06 is absolute bullshit. The idea that these "military style" weapons are somehow more dangerous demonstrates a lack of knowledge or a willful ignorance to the facts.